skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> is because I had been able to build up a lot of the working relationships I have now in person

I’ve been remote only for a decade, and built those same relationships while doing so.
I agree that the directional trend is more important than absolute numbers. Though I will say there are a fair number of traditional employers hiring on HN (e.g. Disney, NASA, Oracle, USDS).
WSB isn't a single, regulated ( brokers are), entity, it's just a bunch of people getting together.

The entities that altered the price were notably - the shorting hedge funds and the broker that failed to do its job ( broker trades) in a blatant conflict of interest.
I am hearing about Autocrypt for the first time. Mind filling me in on how it is different from PGP encryption?
Really? Where in America are you looking at a "ridiculous" long prison sentence in 2020 for possession?

The war on drugs sucked, but it was still mostly a war against dealers.
Those sections seem to deal with actions taken against an individual user, not actions that affect a stock's price. In theory if Robinhood's actions are illegal (don't know) and if they caused losses to holders of GME (don't know, but likely) then plaintiffs could include people who don't even have Robinhood accounts and never agreed to that.
I believe so, and someone says that’s what happened. https://twitter.com/justinkan/status/1354853920762253315
So you’re saying the house caught you catching cards? :p
Exactly what I am doing. Tabs on the right on the right-hand monitor on Mac (which has window controls on the left).
They never get in the way, basically I only see them when I am going to use them.
I find the discussion here more interesting than the article.

I'd like to see the same study conducted in the US and - separately - in Europe as well.
I can't understand what you think this adds to the discussion? It should be obvious to anyone with common sense that there is no single regulatory body and regulations vary?
Citadel should not be able to prevent Robinhood from trading $GME. Robinhood routes trades to many other counterparties, detailed here:

https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHS%20SEC%2... from https://robinhood.com/us/en/about/legal/
Why We’ll Pay for Social Media
Derivatives involves a lot of betting. It also involves legitimate hedging. A farmer can lock in their revenue, and a manufacturing company can lock in exchange rates.
>Your mental model for how the world works is wrong.

Is this a joke? Were you conscious in 2007-2008? Lol
If you don't have an understanding of signed distance fields, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--5LwHRhjk is an amazing demo of their power. There are more videos about the fundamentals of SDFs at https://www.iquilezles.org/live/index.htm

The interesting thing about this paper is that they replace the mathematical SDF with a neural net that computes SDF_NN(x,y,z) => -1/1 and use this as a compression system for mesh based inputs. This feels like a graphical version of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutter_Prize for NN-based text compression.
Yeah even if one POD at Citadel (hedge fund segment) was short GME or increased GME short before Robinhood GME stop there will be many fingers pointed.
Useful things in 2021 we should know them
I don't think that Robinhood had any other choice here. Their partner is Citadel, which is basically a "middleman" broker. Citadels main business is this, for every incoming stock purchase, they buy stock at an amount that is just slightly lower, driving up the stock price a tiny bit, and then sell the stock to the buyer, pocketing the difference. They can do this because they have direct access to the stock market and are fully autonated. Robinhoods access to the stock market is also through Citadel. Citadel also bailed out the Melvin Capital hedge fund earlier this week.

I would imagine that Citadel can simply force one of their partners like Robinhood to do anything by threatening to cut them off from the market entirely.

I think their main goal now is to make sure that the lawsuits and fines they will be hit with will cause them to loose less than a short squeeze in this stock would eventually have.

But all of this is just speculation. I don't actually know anything about the stock market, I started reading about it two days ago. I don't want to "conspire" or anything like that, just my theory.
They picked their company name evoking a certain moral ethos, and the first time their customers consciously acted on that ethos, they pulled the plug.

Whether you agree with that ethos or not, I think we can at least agree that RH lacks the courage of its convictions.
I would add that simply having been raised rich doesn’t guarantee any sort of success, it just makes it easier if the aptitude is there.. which is why so many of the ultra ultra rich come from ultra rich families who came from rich families who... Capital accumulates over time as long as the inheritor has some aptitude.

I live in a condo in NYC that is owned almost equally by three groups - investors, trust funders, rich worker bees.

The trust funders are an interesting lot to observe. We have the child of a minor politician in an oil rich countries in one of our most expensive units. My neighbor has never to my knowledge had any sort of a job in his life, but owned 4 apartments before age 30, before selling all of them at a loss in the last year. We have people in their 20s with job titles like “makeup artist”, “political organizer/activist”, “personal assistant”, “journalist”, etc living in paid-off $1M apartments.

Even the “investor” units are interesting as more than half of them are owned by some combination of the developer, the developers children, the developers silent partner, the developers lawyer, etc..
Robinhood has always taken from the poor to give to the rich, they just hid it well. Take a closer look at how they are making money when they don't charge any commissions (the "shadow exchange" where HFT operations get to make money on orders placed by Robinhood's customers),
That's actually a good point, at the same time, in the bigger picture, it's market chaos and nobody wants it.

Basically, mobs are fighting against hedge funds using random companies as battle grounds - the markets are there to support those companies, not destroy them.

So what we are seeing is kind of an inflection point that the system wants to tamp down.

It's actually pretty distressing to see how many intelligent people think they are doing some kind of good here, like burning down a few stores to force the owners to leverage some kind of fire insurance policy to destroy the 'evil insurers'.
One thing I've found can help somewhat with the historical aspect is putting reasons for particular choices in commit messages. Including small choices, decisions that are subcomponents of the reason for the whole patch. They are forever attached exactly to that diff, and can sometimes let a spelunking maintainer differentiate accident, entropy, and intention.
If anything will ever kill established "Enterprise Open Source" or Open Core business models, it's because of cloud service consumers and cloud platform customers that prefer the seamless and often convenient integration of FOSS services and technologies their preferred cloud platform (be it Azure, AWS, GCP, or whatever other player that reaches a sufficient size to be able to) provides.

That happens to the direct financial detriment of the companies that actually created these free tools, while (perhaps naively) hoping to be able to sell services based on them to enterprise customers themselves. And it's going to be a real pity and for the FOSS community when it happens.

Software may be eating the world, but managed software platforms are eating (free) software.
It definitely makes a huge difference to have savings if you want to be an entrepreneur. But these days, a decent programmer can save up a year or more of runway and build industry connections just by working for a few years and not spending outlandishly. If the startup doesn't work out, a new cushy job is waiting for you.

So yeah, startups are risky and favor the wealthy, but let's not overstate the case. I'm in favor of basic income and I agree it would be a boon to entrepreneurship, but people with the skills to build a tech startup have already won the lottery. We're not the ones in need.
All entrepreneurial people in my age (35), that I know, have (at least) better off parents.

Most of their success stems from the fact that they could live with their parents for an extended amount of time and found&crash a bunch of companies before they were 25.

Even the most average person knows how to run a company after they tried and failed often enough.

People joke around how Trump got "a small loan of one million dollars" from his dad.

But it doesn't even have to be that much money, just enough so you don't have to work for 2-3 years.
Class action lawsuits are about people punishing companies because the government won't levy a harsh enough penalty. I never took part in a class action because I wanted "a payday," I take part in them because I want the company punished.
https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHS%20SEC%2... from https://robinhood.com/us/en/about/legal/ enumerates their revenue from PFOF.
Loughla is right, it was reasonable for customers to trust their banks on scoping a mortgage. Not because of some technical fiduciary status, but because banks had a history of being conservative with mortgage underwriting, and because it would seem to be in the banks' best interest to be conservative with mortgage underwriting.

But some banks thought they could lower their underwriting standards and get away with it because they could shift the risk to larger financial entities by selling the mortgages. And a lot of non-banks got in on the mortgage underwriting game for the same reason.

And bank customers liked it. Who doesn't like to be told that you're in better financial shape than you thought? That should be good news.

My point above was not to defend what banks did, but to point out that, even though banks were in the legal right to lower their underwriting standards, it did not work out well for them or their customers (or anyone else, really). And a lot of the downside came later, in the form of bad reputations, burdensome regulations, etc.
The Hard Lessons of Modeling the Coronavirus Pandemic
You seem to be making a lot of flawed assumptions here.

Even IF you are to assume this is a simply speculative "greater fool" scenario Robinhood just ensured through their interference that the last buyers are less likely to profit.

Robinhood's job is not to police transactions it is to process them. That they would do this for a few million $ in potential customer support time is so naïve.

Letting them off the hook for illegal manipulation because "it is a headache" is one of the stupidest arguments I have heard.
I think it'll potentially shift radically for some industries. Tech and other knowledge worker industry adapts more easily to this sort of thing than most, and tech in particular probably will pivot for a large segment for sake of not having to pay rent.

What I expect to really take off, though, is things like managed IT you do from home for some manufacturing company somewhere--small groups embedded or servicing larger companies that can be hired and spun up more cheaply from elsewhere in the country.

Basically, everything that people said would happen (but didn't work out) with globalization in knowledge worker industry, I personally expect to actually happen and work out with "domestication" of it to include a large segment of remote workers. The business considerations are mostly the same, minus the cultural, governmental, and time zone barriers that prevented it from working.
Ethereum solves some of this Wall Street censorship
20% of Ethereum usage is an open source trading platform called Uniswap, where anyone can list anything. https://etherscan.io/gastracker. Bitcoin doesn't solve this.
More do verbs -have- to be bundled with nouns (or live second class citizen lives), as that's more what OO requires. Even in functional languages, you -can- have verbs living with nouns (your struct can have a field that is of function type); it just isn't required (or recommended for most use cases).

It's not a question of can they, or should we prevent them, it's 'should it be required?'

It may make sense to require all verbs to be coupled to a noun when your problem domain is mostly modeling nouns, and verbs only describe how those models change and interact with each other. But when the problem domain is mostly process, with nouns being ancillary, it is unwieldy to talk that way. It's why you have so many "ThingDoer" and "Utils" and the like in most OO codebases.
Aren't there circuit breakers that prevent individual stocks from falling that fast?
Contracts still don't allow you to brake laws including anti-marked manipulation regulations.

But besides that in many countries (idk. about the US) TOS are quite more limited in what they can contain then "normal" contracts. E.g. if you write in that the user agreeing to it must allow the company to buy their house (if they have one) for marked value anytime the company wants would be not legal, but could be legal in a contract. (And could also be non-legal in a contract under some circumstances).

Anyway it's widespread and common for TOS to contain non-legal clauses which due to the way a TOS is made are as if they are not written in there (i.e. they just invalidate themself not the whole contract).

So in the end the question is:

- Is it directly against a law/regulation, in which case TOS doesn't help at all.

- Or if it's not against law per-see is it still not legal because it's in the TOS and due to <enter TOS related laws> not legal binding (I wouldn't put hope into this in the US, but I don't know US law wrt. this aspect).
Robinhood is easily the worst "broker" app I've ever seen. This is just the most public screwup in their long history of anti-user behavior. Why anyone continues to use RH I have no idea.

The only other brokers where I've seen restrictions were against margin trading (which I think is fair and makes sense - gamble with your own money if you want, but not with ours).

Maybe there are some other brokers behaving just as badly, but if the net consequence of this is that RH goes away, I don't think much of value was lost.
An alternative is invest some portion of money in crypto assets, and Defi which can be a sort of decentralized alternative to established financial players. Obviously this isn't the stock market but this incident should raise scrutiny of the merits of being involved in that rigged casino in general.
That statement calls for "the SEC and other financial regulators to wake up and do their jobs". If this were about solving the problem rather than scoring points she would have left a clue to what she thought their job was in this case. There isn't one. She can't be so oblivious as to think it's obvious.
> learned from watching Billions

You know, it's a TV show, not a graduate level course on capital markets.
The legal framework under which they operate - even if most of us prefer it didn't exist and instead were relegated to a provable fair platform - expressly forbids using the platform as a tool of manipulating a specific instrument. And the appearance is certainly that that's what they've done.

So presumably participants (widely defined) had already built that information into their decision making.
"Collective Market Manipulation" so ... that is what we are calling buying stocks now?
Improving Mobile App Accessibility with Icon Detection
Liveview is stateful and uses websockets (or long polling) whereas turbo is stateless and uses regular http requests.

NB. I haven’t used liveview, however turbo seems much simpler on a conceptual level because of the lack of state. This comes with extra performance cost, but on my current project I’m optimising for dev productivity and simplicity.
> 40% of Robinhood's revenues earlier this year were derived from selling its customers' orders to firms

This has been openly known for years now. The article presents it as “stealing” but it’s really more the case of data leakage and the market becoming less optimal. Free trading isn’t possible without something to pay for it unfortunately.
Please don't cross into personal attack in HN comments, no matter how wrong you think someone is or how strongly you feel. It just makes everything worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I think TD Ameritrade did the same.
Citadel din't bail them out and they didn't close the positions, if they did, the "bailout" would be a complete writeoff -- why would Citadel do that?

Citadel probably gave them the cash to avoid a margin call, knowing they can later manipulate the market and the shorts would payoff in the end, and Citadel would get their share of the spoils.

Otherwise a bailout makes no economical sense, Citadel is not the FED, they can't print money just to cover someone elses losses.
RH caused a huge price drop in a stock that a lot of their users held. At least some of them would've sold while the price was higher and in the best case for them if the squeeze worked it would've been the short sellers who would've made the losses who are mostly not on RH. This move near-guaranteed it's their users who took the bigger losses, including those that might've sold today anyway.
The whole landscape probably shifts a bit. More people fully remote. More WFH more days per week than they did before. And so forth. But, yes, I don't expect many companies who currently have an office(s) to close them down. Maybe reconfigure, shut down expansion plans, hotel as needed, etc.

Won't really affect me as I was fully remote before this (in spite of being commuting distance from a company office). But I definitely know people who have moved out of the area.
To clarify how this works:

There is a public book of buy/sell orders.

HFTs would prefer not to put their orders on these books for various legitimate reasons (including fees).

If (and only if) HFTs (or other trading firms) are willing to offer the user a better price than the best available price on the market, Robin Hood will just give the order to them instead of placing the order on the public market.

So if the market price is $10, and an HFT is willing to sell for $9.95, then Robin Hood might give the user an execution price of $9.97 and keep the 2 cents to themselves.

The user gets a better price than they would have on the open market, and a better price than they were expecting.
> Robinhood was one of many brokerages to implement trading restrictions. e.g. Bank of America/Merrill Edge also shut down buy orders for GME. Citadel does not have the same relationship with these other brokerages. So, to say Robinhood made their decision based on a conflict of interest doesn't hold water.

My issue is those brokerages said they were closing orders because of Apex clearing. Robinhood basically said that they chose to do it themselves: https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/1/28/keeping-customers-...
with the stock price through the roof other funds (and retail investors) see it as a good opportunity to short.
It’s their fucking trading platform if they want to defend people from investing in a Ponzi scheme is that not allowed.
>Citadel has no short positions to speak of in GameStop. They bailed out Melvin, which means they made money, not Melvin's positions per se. Also, by the time that happened Melvin had already closed out its short.

You have made these claims dozens of times today without citing sources. Are you spreading insider information, lying, or just incredibly lazy and don't care if people believe you?
I don’t think people really understand how Citadel’s internal structure works. It’s not just one mustache twirling villain, deciding what to do.

The market making unit is in a totally different part of the org chart, with its own PnL lines, than the hedge fund. In fact Citadel Securities is a separate company than Citadel Investments.

But most importantly there’s a legally mandated Chinese firewall between the two. Employees on one side are not allowed to discuss operations with employees on the other. This is enforced to the extent, that an employees access card won’t let them enter the other side of the division.

Citadel makes a shit ton of money as it is. Nobody there is going to risk major jail time with an easy to unravel scheme involving dozens of co-conspirators, just to make a few extra bucks on a tiny short position.
The loss is provably infinite, the fine should be too.
Yes, I'm confused by "Tesla Level 2 -> CCS"?

Teslas outside of the US have shipped with CCS since early 2019. Older Teslas had the proprietary port.

What is a "Tesla Level 2"? There exists an adapter to convert CCS to the proprietary Tesla connector but that's not L2.
1. How likely is it BofA-ML has short positions or investments in funds who do?

2. Isn't Citadel's deal with Robinhood dependent on the flow being "dumb" and not having any broad effect on the market? That's obviously no longer the case, if it ever was. Robinhood is still venture backed, so they're feeling the pressure to show growth in users and profits. Is it possible the market for their "much-less-dumb-than-previously-thought" flow has shrunk substantially?

Also, the retail traders involved and the press surrounding them have (accurately imo) painted this as a populist "sticking it to the elites" movement. What if the so-called elites really do want to disenfranchise and mitigate retail investors impact on the market? BofA, Citadel, and peers might have an interest in maintaining the status quo.
"a few more remote friendly companies". Respectfully disagree - the market will make this decision, and now that employees have all tasted the benefit, they are going to work for companies that give them that freedom. On top of that, most companies have seen equal or greater productivity (no commute, fewer sick days, etc), and will at least downsize their real estate for cost savings. There's little argument to make people come back to an office if there is no obvious benefit.
Depends on the bubble you are in.
Well, as another commented pointed out, there is a difference between innovating and starting companies. So I would argue that you do see more innovation from poor families than rich families. After all, rich families have no need to innovate, they just throw money at problems until they go away. Poor people are financially constrained and have to think outside the box to solve their problems. But you also see more companies started by rich people. Not necessarily innovative companies, mind you, just companies.
They got hit with a $65M SEC settlement for this last December: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinhood_(company)#SEC_Probe_...

This is a clear case of "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product".
Not OP, but common sense is telling me the answer you seek is "other companies not in the list by OP"
Just to be clear, our solution is about failing over all of your environment to another region. So in our case, A, B, & C would all be coming up together from snapshots in that other region. But there are still consistency concerns as you mentioned.

We do everything we can to snapshot servers in quick succession (as much as we can with AWS), but they won't be fully consistent across nodes. We've found, though, that clustered systems like this have built-in capabilities to deal with these inconsistencies. It's kinda similar to if you lost power to all 3 systems and then brought them back up - they might not all be at the exact same point in time, and the application would need to sort that out.

If you'll tell me what application this is (is it a database platform?) I can do some quick research for you.
> I'm sure that most people don't want to work remotely full time

Why are you sure about that? Because that's how you feel?
This website just changed out some words from this BI article, blatant plagiarism.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-mas-ant-group-plans-shr...